Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:30 am

Let me get this straight from the start. I do not want this to be another goddamn Democrat-Republican post (take it elsewhere as I couldn't care less), but what I want to mention is:

Today I was in the newsagents and saw the cover of the latest Time Magazine. On the cover was a photo of George Bush, with the title "Person of the Year".

What may I ask has he done in the Year 2000 that should give him the title "Person of the Year"? What has he done to further the cause of humanity? What has he done to bring a nation or nations together? What has he done to help eradicate disease from the Third World countries?

I have my much more suitable choices for "Person of the Year"

* Cathy Freeman - This is very much biased towards me being Australian, but no-one has been able to unite "White and Black" Australia in a way that Cathy was able to when she lit the Olympic cauldron and won the 400m. The best thing about it was is that it was outside the realm of politics (arrggghhhh) and in sport (which is the way I have always said white and blacks will unite)

* Kim Dae-jung - The South Korean president who has actively promoted the "Sunshine Policy" in terms of North Korea, which this year led to the biggest thawing in relations with the North in the last 50 years. The ultimate result for me personally, was seeing North and South Korea march as one in the Olympic parade. And of course, the family reunions which have been 50 years in the making.

I am sure that other people would have more suitable choices for "Person of the Year" as well which I would be interested to hear of.
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:03 am

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:35 am

Funny, I thought the same thing when I saw that cover. What had he actually done to deserve being chosen Person of the Year?
Posts: 2955
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 5:56 am

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:39 am

Who were the past winners of "person/man of the year" and how do they compare?



Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:45 am

I would be taking a very educated guess in that Nelson Mandela would have been a previous "Person of the Year". How would he compare to is like comparing apples and oranges in that instance, isn't it?

Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 1999 10:21 am

RE: Bush---the Real

Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:48 am

Time said they were going to decide who was 'Person of the Year' by whoever won the election.

I find it a little strange myself that they would consider either of the canidates at THIS stage....seems a little premature.

Now next year, or the year after, I could see them choosing Bush...but I think they should have given him some more time.

Personally, I would consider Alan Greenspan too......



RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:55 am

Dusty wusty,

Greenspan is not a popular person in Asia.


As for Bush on the front of Time, how much did they pay?


RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 4:16 am

Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 1999 10:21 am

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 4:23 am

I don't think the requirements include being widely popular throughout the world........

Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 10:58 am

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 4:49 am

And is Kathy Freeman or Kim jong-jing-long-som popular in the US, where TIME is published, and the highest readership is located?
My views as expressed above are my views alone and do not constitute the views of my employer.
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 10:58 am

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 4:55 am

Here's something for you MB. I know this is your thing.

My views as expressed above are my views alone and do not constitute the views of my employer.
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 10:58 am

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 5:01 am

All you liberals better get ready, because it's four years of conservatism ahead!

My views as expressed above are my views alone and do not constitute the views of my employer.
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 5:51 am

The "Person of the Year" does not denote favoritism.

The person who wins "Person of the Year" is a person who has occupied the majority of the headlines recently.

Since both Bush and Gore have dominated this year's headlines, it would only be logical that the winner be crowned "Person of the Year" because that person would be mentioned in more headlines.

Adolf Hitler was named "Man of the Year" (back when Time had that). So, don't think it's showing who's better.

- Neil Harrison
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:01 pm

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 6:48 am

I was shocked myself. What has Gore or Bush really done this year other than fight about the election? I think it should have gone to the people who mapped out the human genome.

RE: Bush---the Real

Sat Dec 23, 2000 10:05 am

God Bless Ms. Freeman. She's a winner and everybody loves a winner. George W. Bush too is a winner. He won the position of leading the United States, a country that possesses second to none economic and military might that is not only fact, but awesome. And it was close. Games of sport that end with a wide score differents do not intrigue. So it is with politics. W. won, but barely. There are athletes of the past and present, members of all the worlds great sports who were once laughed at and ridiculed as they first entered the arena only to have become household names because of their proven abilities and feats. They were given a chance. Because of that chance they were able to prove themselves.
North Korea, "lead" by the ruthless "Dear Leader" has emerged as a nation willing to cooperate with the free world because its civilian population is literally starving while its military remains well fed, oiled and tooled. Can you imagine being the leader of a nation located right next door to such a time bomb? President Kim Dae-Jung of South Korea does just that. He also knows that it is the President of the United States that would unleash it's full military might to protect him and his country should North Korea's military penetrate the DMZ. George Bush is the leader of that military might come Jan.20th. I remember full well you expressing your absolute contempt and hatred of my United States and my fellow citizens on this board, Mr. Lions. I do not fault you for that for you are what you are and believe what you believe. However, like it or not, it is because of the United States, her men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and the man who will lead them come Jan. 20th who are responcible for you and your family there in the great country of Austrailia for sleeping well and peacefully at night. God Bless George W. Bush, Time Magazine's Person Of The Year! Merry CHRISTmas and may all Aussies enjoy their summer come Christmas day while we yanks freeze our asses off here in the good ol' U.S. of A!

RE: Bush---the Real

Sat Dec 23, 2000 2:41 pm

N312RC says:

""Here's something for you MB. I know this is your thing.""

Ha Ha, I think thats funny! Where did you get that from?

mb (*who doesn't really give a rats either way who your stuck with as pres, I just find Dubya amusing and a goat - he he*)

RE: Bush---the Real "Person Of The Year"?

Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:28 pm

Didn't Kim Dae-jung get the Nobel Peace Prize this year for his efforts to reunite North and South Korea? Or am I wrong about this? In my opinion, the Nobel Peace Prize is ALOT better than person of the year.
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 1999 10:21 am


Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:32 pm

That was one of the finest posts I've read on here. You are a welcome addition to my respected users list!!!


G Dubya
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 1:10 am

RE: Bush---the Real

Sat Dec 23, 2000 4:12 pm

Interesting article 'bout me...

Yo! I'm hip...

RE: Bush---the Real

Sun Dec 24, 2000 3:28 am


I could actually agree with you there. The human genome means more to humanity on a global scale than one person's partisan agenda. One can only hope that the information attained from the research is used for the "good" of all peoples, rich and poor.


You are right. Kim Dae-jung did win this years Nobel Peace Prize, and you are right; winning the Peace Prize is a lot more convincing that "Person of the Year". One need only look at previous winners of the "Person of the Year". These include; computers, Middle America and Earth. What an absolute joke.


There are so many things I can say to you but I won't. I will stick to facts, and facts alone. But for you to say that I hate American and American citizens is utter bullshit. You might be surprised to know some of my best friends here in Perth, are...OH MY GOD...SHOULD I ADMIT IT....AMERICANS!!! But you continue to read into my posts how you will. Your loss...not mine.

North and South Korea

America assisting the South against the North is not all that simple. Why? You seem to have forgotten about a little country of over a billion people called China. China is still very friendly towards the North (this is proven because both countries still have a Military and Friendship Pact). BUT...having said that. Let's just say for a minute that the North invaded the South. Then America steps in. What is China going to do? Well because the Americans will be fighting the Commies to the North, China will use that opportunity to invade Taiwan, with little to no resistance from the Taiwanese and their American "allies". What is the prize here? South Korea or Taiwan? I can tell you which one the American government thinks, and I am sure you will know too.

Can I also ask you, why the North may have shown, what some people will call, agression. It wouldn't have anything to do with all the American soldiers which are currently stationed in the South. The Russians, at no stage, had a military presence in the North, like that of which the Americans maintain in the South.

I add further, that the North and South have been able to reach their latest "victories" for peace and understanding without the outside influences of China, Japan, AND America. All of the dialogue which lead to breakthroughs this year, was done between the North and the South, and those two parties only. This is the only way that the Korean "problem" will ever be solved, because when outside parties come into the fray, their own agendas will overshadow talks, when the only agendas that should be discussed are those of the Korean people.

America being responsible for Australia

Is that a joke? I really do not hope you think this is true. In what sense is that even reality?

You tend to forget that there is a reason why two countries are called "allies". This is because they work as a team, and NO ONE country takes responsibility for victory, and NO ONE country blames their ally for defeat.

Let's say what you say is true. Then why wasn't the American men and women able to stop the Japanese from bombing Darwin and Broome in WWII? Why wasn't the American defence forces able to stop the disaster which was the HMAS Sydney?

You obviously know a lot about Australian history during WWII. Could you please then explain to me how the Japanese advance into Australia was halted? You might just learn about the Kokoda Trail, Bougainville, the Fuzzy-Wuzzy's, Timor, amongst others. It is the tribal people to our north in Indonesia, Timor, Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea who are the real heroes for putting a halt to the plans of raising the Japanese Empire flag in Australia.

Australia rushed to the call of America in Vietnam. Which other country's, apart from Canada and New Zealand, did this? Where was America, OUR ALLY, when we asked for help in East Timor? (I am not complaining here, because our troops are well able to look after my country; I am just showing you a point)

Our country has matured a lot in the past 20 years, and we have become less dependent on America for our military defence. This is evident in the five-nation alliance, between Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia and Britain. This is IMHO my country's most important military alliance, because the greatest threat to my country, albeit practically non-existent, is the country directly to our North; Indonesia. Yes, Indonesia, a country which is armed to teeth with American supplied F-16s. Yes, my country has in the past too overlooked the former Suharto regime, and we even held military ties with Indonesia, but in the last couple of years, these ties have been scaled back in a major way.

So please do not say that America is responsible for my family sleeping well at night! My grandfather who lost his life on Bougainville, my great-uncle who lost his life in Gallipoli and my great-grandfather who lost his life on the Western Front are responsible for this. This is in addition to Australia's allies, England, France, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and others. SHOULD I BE EVEN SO BOLD AS TO ADD AMERICA TO THAT LIST?


I also stand corrected as quoting Nelson Mandela as having won "Person of the Year". This is incorrect. In any of the years he should have won that title, Ted Turner and Bill Clinton took it. Again...a JOKE!

To anyone who says that Bush should have this title because of the amount of headlines during this year, then may I then ask why Elian Gonzalez didn't win, because from what I can remember, this kid had more headlines this year than anyone else. Am I right or wrong?

And to all the little kiddies on this forum, unless you have something truly enlightening to add don't bother posting. Hell....if you insist on posting, how about giving your reasons as to why Bush should have been given "Person of the Year" because so far not one person has given any reason which is at all relevant.

We have had so far the following reasons why:


A person can be extremely successful and all that and still be unpopular. Just look at Bill Gates.

Think of it this way for a moment. Let's have a competition for "Woman of the Year". If it were to be based on popularity, and popularity alone, that title would have to go to someone of the likes of Christine "I'm a braindead blonde bimbo" Aguilera, Britney "I'm going to marry Prince William, even though he wants nothing to do with me" Spears, or Jennifer "I can get off gun charges because I am famous" Lopez. OK...all 3 of these women (well, Jennifer is a woman...the other 2 are still pre-pubescent aren't they?) are popular. But what thru them being popular have they actually done to warrant elevating their their status to "Woman of the Year", when you have the likes of Cathy Freeman, Mary Robinson, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Aung San Suu Kyi and others who have done more in their prescribed fields than any of the others put together.

Also, if "Person of the Year" is only an American title (which by looking at previous years, it is), and it is to be based on popularity, and popularity alone, how is one to judge how popular a person is. Well in the case of this year, TIME apparently said that the title would go to the winner of the American election, so therefore the American people decided who was most popular by voting. In the end, Bush won "Person of the Year" and in the eyes of some, means he was more popular. This is even though more people voted for the other person. Am I incorrect here?, coz I don't want to come across as an expert on American affairs here, which will then cause DG_Pilot to ramble on about me living half way around the world and commenting (little does he know that I am actually 2 years into a university degree in which one of my majors is HISTORY!)

2) TIME readership

N321RC mentioned that TIME is published in the US, and has the largest readership. This is actually incorrect. TIME may be published in the US, but there are also local versions around the world. The proof is in the pudding; you go to any airport around the world, and I guarantee you, you will be able to find a copy of TIME. 6 billion people in this world, 250 million in America. Now how many of the 6 billion and how many of the 250 million actually read TIME? I would not be in the least bit surprised, if readership on a global level outrates that of America by 10:1

Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Bush---the Real

Sun Dec 24, 2000 10:14 am

I may like Bush...but i see no reason why he should be named person of the year this year. Then seems to be a pretty arbitrary award, almost random in the way it is presented....if anyone can find the actual criteria for getting it please post it on here. Ted Turner? for crying out loud....
Chicks dig winglets.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Erkki, Google [Bot], notaxonrotax and 1 guest

Popular Searches On

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos